A Habermasian Analysis of a Process of Recognition of Prior Learning for Health Care Assistants

Abstract

This article discusses a process of recognition of prior learning for accreditation of prior experiential learning to qualify for course credits used in an adult in-service education program for health care assistants at the upper-secondary level in Sweden. The data are based on interviews and observations drawn from a field study, and Habermas’s theory of communicative action is used for analysis. The main findings suggest that the students do not fully understand the assessment process or how their prior learning was transformed into credits. This reflects the teacher’s strategic actions and the lack of mutual understanding. Examples are sketched about how the process could be developed using the theory of communicative action. From a Habermasian perspective, this process is also criticized as promoting an assimilation of lifeworld-grounded experiences to the system. This form of recognition of prior learning does not seem to satisfy important goals and ideals in adult education and learning.

Keywords

recognition of prior learning health care assistants adult learning Habermas theory of communicative action

Introduction

This article focuses on students’ understanding of a process of recognition of prior learning (RPL) for accreditation of prior experiential learning to qualify for course credits, and Habermas’s (1984, 1987) theory of communicative action has been used in the analysis. The theory of communicative action offers theoretical tools that can be used to understand what consequences communication and actions have for the students’ understanding of the RPL process. The findings are based on a field study of an adult in-service training program for health care assistants in Sweden. In Sweden, RPL has played a significant role in enabling health care assistants to qualify as licensed practical nurses. The adult in-service training program studied here is part of a national initiative focusing on enhancing health care assistants’ knowledge and competencies (Step for Skills, 2006).

There are various methods and strategies used to recognize prior learning. RPL is often seen as more positive and less instrumental, when it is integrated into formal learning processes, where students’ prior learning is used as a starting point for new learning opportunities (e.g., Brown, 2001, 2002). The focus here is on an RPL process for accreditation, a form of RPL that, as will be discussed below, has been criticized for its instrumentalism. Gouthro and Holloway (2010) argue that an instrumental rational view of education, following Habermas (1987), is increasingly becoming the standard. Means-end results, essential skills, and competency-based educational approaches are given more attention. RPL for accreditation could be seen as following this path of rationalization. It might be argued that prior experiential learning turns into something similar to “money” used in the education “market,” to buy course credits. Spencer (2005), like Gouthro, argues that formal education is becoming more and more focused on the credential. Learning is then no longer the central object. In this more instrumental form of RPL, the course credit becomes the means-end goal of the process and prior learning is thus not used as a starting point for further learning. Following this discussion, it is important to more thoroughly analyze how RPL processes aiming for accreditation work and what consequences they have.

The Theory of Communicative Action

Habermas’s work has been influential in research on adult learning and education. Most well known is probably Mezirow’s (1981, 1997) transformative learning theory inspired by Habermas’s theory of communicative action. Another example is Brookfield’s (2001, 2005) effort to connect and critically discuss Habermas’s theory of communicative action in connection with the aims of adult learning and education.

The aim here is to introduce Habermas’s theory of communicative action and summarize those concepts that have been used in the analysis. On a macro level, Habermas makes a distinction between system and lifeworld. The system can be found in the market, bureaucracy, and economy and is reproduced by means of money (market) and power (government, bureaucracy). In the lifeworld, language is the key medium of integration. The lifeworld is reproduced where social integration occurs—for instance, in family and educational settings. The lifeworld is the horizon of experiences that communicative action moves within and is limited or changed by the structural transformation of society (Habermas, 1987). Habermas’s concern is that the symbolic reproduction of the lifeworld is threatened with colonization by systems. It is proposed that steering media such as money and power move into the lifeworld and take over the coordination that is ideally preserved through language. Communication and mutual understanding are important in education since they have a central function in the reproduction of the lifeworld. However, educational processes are not just focused on communication and mutual understanding (lifeworld). A central aspect of most formal educational processes also involves the assessment (system) of students’ knowledge. From a Habermasian point of view, there are several consequences that arise when grades and tests become the main target of education. When individuals are not given the chance to engage in mutual learning processes, there is a risk of education becoming an instrumental rather than a communicative experience. In RPL, for accreditation it is important to address the relationship between the lifeworld and the system. One could here argue that RPL for accreditation becomes a process where the system through assessment “assimilates” and reorders prior experiential grounded lifeworld experiences so that they fit the curricula (system). Or as Habermas (1987) puts it, “Autonomous subsystems make their way into the lifeworld from the outside—like colonial masters coming into tribal society—and force a process of assimilation upon it” (p. 355).

On a micro level, Habermas (1984, 1987) develops several concepts. For instance, it is suggested that reality can be divided into three worlds: the objective, social, and subjective. The objective world is the totality of all entities about which true statements are possible. The social world is the totality of all legitimately regulated interpersonal relationships. The subjective world is the totality of the experiences of a person, to which he/she has privileged access. In the objective world, we find true propositions such as states of affairs. Here, we can make assertions that are true or false. We can carry out goal-oriented interventions and raise truth claims. In the social world, we can raise claims of normative rightness and truth. Here, the objective and the social worlds are related. Besides an objective world of states of affairs/truths, there is a social world of interpersonal relationships. In the subjective world, we raise claims to truthfulness and sincerity. In the subjective world, there is a two-folded relation: the external and the internal understanding of this external world. Here, an actor has to act dramaturgically in relation to his/her own subjective world to which this person has privileged access and in relation to an audience of addressees. In connection to the above discussions, Habermas is searching for the foundation of what he refers to as communicative rationality through which we can reach mutual understanding. To be communicatively rational, it is necessary to be rational, not only in one sense, but three: through means-end rationality, normative rationality, and expressive rationality.

In communicative action, actors thus bring their individual goals into a process of mutual understanding and try to harmonize their actions by engaging in mutual definitions of a situation with other actors (Habermas, 1984). It is then necessary to be rational in means-end, normative, and expressive ways (i.e., reach agreement about the goal of the process and establish norms for how to behave and enable individuals to express themselves in a subjective manner). By raising the validity claims of truth, normative rightness, and truthfulness or sincerity, individuals can idealistically engage in such discussions with the purpose of reaching mutual understanding and thus harmonize their plans for action (Habermas, 1987). Even though validity claims are always present in communication, they can also be used for other purposes than the ones mentioned above. Individuals may act strategically or manipulate individuals to reinforce individual agendas.

Communication and reflection are key parts of RPL. In an ideal communicative action–focused RPL process, student and assessor would agree mutually on the goals of the RPL process, reach mutual understanding on how the students should reflect on their prior experiences, and students would also be able to express thoughts and feelings subjectively. If RPL processes are based on mutual definitions of the situation and mutual understanding in general, it could make the prior experiences more visible and thus easier for an assessor to accept as sufficient to qualify for course credit. It would probably also enable students to more clearly understand the transformation of their prior learning into course credits. But, on the other hand, strategic and goal-oriented actions might distort RPL processes and thus fail to enable mutual definitions, and furthermore, make mutual understanding superfluous.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to explore the RPL procedure as communicative action, with the main focus on the students’ understanding of this process. The analysis here raises the following questions: In what worlds does the process proceed? What actions govern the RPL processes? How can the validity claims and rationalities inform the process? What are the consequences for different kinds of actions and communication for the students’ understanding of the RPL process?

Background

Adult education is different from other forms of education since adults have often developed wide-ranging experiences in life. Experience from work, earlier studies, and leisure activities may prove to be worthy of recognition. Adult educators often try to incorporate these experiences in course-based learning. It is therefore not unexpected that theories concerning experiential learning have had a great impact on adult educators and researchers concerned with RPL (e.g., Brown, 2002). According to Kolb (1984), experiential learning theory frames learning as a process and not in terms of the means-end result. To learn is always to relearn. Learning processes are driven forward by resolutions of conflicts and differences. One important issue here is that experience is the focus of learning. Prior learning is therefore considered important to take as a starting point for new learning. But other theorizations of RPL are being used as well. In Andersson and Harris (2006), an attempt is made to theorize RPL from different theoretical perspectives: assessment theory, the sociology of education, poststructuralism (see also Andersson & Osman, 2008; Fejes, 2008, 2010) and situated knowledge/learning theory, actor-network and complexity theory, and symbolic interactionism.

The idea of RPL can be traced back to World War II when American veterans’ experiences were recognized by universities in the United States. But the concept of prior learning assessment (PLA) was not introduced until the late 1960s in the United States. At this time, the focus was specifically on broadening access to university studies (Fejes & Andersson, 2009). RPL has become a “worldwide movement” (Spencer, 2005) used in North America, New Zealand, Europe, South Africa, and Australia. According to Spencer (2005), RPL refers to acknowledgement and assessment of informal experiential learning—that is, learning that has occurred outside formal educational institutions. In Sweden, RPL has been defined more broadly as the structured assessment, evaluation, and confirmation of knowledge and competence gained in and outside the formal education system (Ministry of Education, 2001, 2003). The concept became known as “Validering” (validation) in Sweden in 1996 and was introduced as part of a process of restructuring adult education (Andersson, 2008).

Three of the purposes of RPL have been summarized by Andersson, Fejes, and Ahn (2004):

Social justice: where RPL is used to make it possible for subordinated groups to gain access to university studies.

Economic development: where RPL uses existing competencies to improve efficiency.

Social change: to make knowledge of a population visible and thereby create better conditions for changing society.

RPL for accreditation could also probably be used to improve efficiency by shortening education time and make visible the knowledge of a population. But prior research has been critical about the technical and instrumental nature of RPL for accreditation.

RPL for Accreditation

RPL for accreditation has received much criticism. For instance, it has been argued that the use value of certain knowledge is mixed up with exchange value, that is, that one type of knowledge (e.g., tacit), though important, may not be easily translated into course credits (Briton, Gereluk, & Spencer, 1998). It is also argued that prior learning is quite different from course-based learning. Prior learning cannot be accredited in the same way as learning gained through studying a course (Spencer, 2005). It is also suggested that RPL for accreditation could have consequences for higher education. One argument is that in an age of “mass higher education,” this could change the function for universities. Universities may then have to deal with employers working as stakeholders and students taking on the role as customers, shopping around for universities providing RPL (Taylor, 1996). The same could almost certainly be said about RPL processes in adult education programs at the upper-secondary level, when adults can choose not to study a course or program and instead require that their prior learning is accredited instead. Writing in a higher education context in South Africa, Castle and Attwood (2001) suggest that RPL for credit promotes a rather narrow and instrumental view of curricula. They also consider it problematic that equivalency can be established between prior experiential learning and theoretical learning. It is nevertheless important to clarify that Castle and Attwood refer to more theoretical university courses. The courses referred to in this article are at the upper-secondary level and focus more on practice than do theoretical university courses. However, here it is important to address the difference between RPL for accreditation and integrating RPL in course-based learning. Brown’s (2001, 2002) work on the portfolio is one example of how prior experiential learning can be integrated in course-based learning and add a further learning dimension. Thus, the focus is not primarily on the course credit; instead, prior learning is seen as contributing to the learning process.

RPL in the Health Care Sector

There is a small body of research on RPL processes aimed at enabling health care assistants to qualify as licensed practical nurses. RPL and related methods in the health care sector have been paid some attention. For instance, in Australia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, education and training in this context have increased. In the United Kingdom, this trend can be seen in the development of the national vocational qualifications (see Fearfull, 1997, 1998); in Sweden, for example, in the development of what is referred to as Step for Skills (2006); and in Australia, in Certificate III (including aged-care work) developed in the Australian Qualifications Framework (see Somerville, 2006).

Some examples of studies of RPL in the health care sector draw attention to issues of identity, gender, and power (Sandberg, 2010; Somerville, 2006). Somerville suggests that the system may fail to acknowledge complex skills necessary in care work when these skills are seen as essentialist, that is, when work in the elderly care sector is seen as a natural part of a female identity. Although Somerville also saw how the RPL process produced intricate discussions on the identity of the care workers, Sandberg addresses the problem of how RPL processes might reproduce a normative view of care work by recognizing the identity and personality of those involved uncritically. Sandberg raises this issue in connection to how the teachers in the study adopt a caring ideology in their relationship with the health care assistants and how this strategy defeats more critical discussions concerning identity issues in the RPL process.

Reflection, discussions, and communication are also more or less common themes in the studies discussed above. Fejes and Andersson (2009) discuss the idea of reflection in an RPL process more in depth. They conclude, by drawing on the work of Michelson (1996), that experience and the process of making knowledge, that is, reflection, are seen as two elements. The interpretation of this is that our experiences have to be reinterpreted and that this in itself is an experience.

A shared theme in these studies is also that they are based on data on RPL for workers in elderly care, an area that has long been characterized by lack of education and training. Somerville’s conclusion, that the elderly care sector is a low-status and gender-segregated work place, include other countries besides Australia such as Sweden and England.

Based on the discussion above, it is possible to conclude that prior research on RPL in the health care sector raises several issues. Such issues include power, gender, identity, reflection, and communication. In the context of care work discussed above, it could be important to more explicitly address the potential of RPL for emancipation and transformation. Even though the studies discussed above are critical of the RPL processes, Somerville (2006) saw a possibility for transformation in her study, and Sandberg (2010) concludes that RPL processes that are more communicative, action oriented, and reflexive could play a central role for the emancipation and enlightenment of health care assistants. But then teachers working with RPL have to adopt a more critical and communicative attitude, instead of, as Sandberg (2010) described, employ a caring ideology.

In this overview of RPL, there is considerable criticism of RPL for accreditation. It was argued that it is justifiable to claim that prior learning is quite different from course-based learning and that prior learning cannot be accredited in the same way as if the student had taken the course. It was also suggested that one type of knowledge (e.g., tacit knowledge), even though important, may not be easily translated into course credits and that this form of RPL promotes a narrow and instrumental view of curricula. Another idea was that the use value of certain knowledge is mixed up with its exchange value. There is also a risk that RPL processes acknowledge complex skills as merely essentialist or reproduce a normative view of a profession uncritically. There was also a discussion on reflecting on experiences and the problems this raises. Based on the above overview of RPL, there are some areas where this study could contribute. First, it is important to more clearly understand how RPL processes for the accreditation work and what consequences they have. This study contributes a student perspective of aspects of the assessment procedure in an RPL process for accreditation. Second, it also contributes an understanding of this kind of procedure in an adult education in-service training program at the upper-secondary level.

Method and Methodology

Methodologically this article rests on interpretive inquiry (Patton, 2002). More specifically, hermeneutical interpretation (Warnke, 1987) has been adopted using the theory of communicative action as a normative framework for interpretation of the data (also see below). Thus, the preunderstanding of RPL and the theory of communicative action has been integrated in a process of hermeneutical interpretation. Data collection for this study involved observations and research interviews with students drawn from a larger field study of RPL. The focus is mainly on the students’ understanding of the RPL process. Fourteen research interviews were used here, conducted with the students after the RPL process ended using a semistructured interview guide and lasted between 50 and 90 minutes. The interviewees were women aged between 37 and 58 years. Most of the assistants work in elderly care. Recorded observations of assessment interviews were also used. These recordings were employed to analyze (or reconstruct) the assessment interviews—a method used by the teachers to assess the prior learning of the students.

A written contract concerning the ethical principles was signed with the director in charge of the in-service training and RPL project. This contract was based on the Swedish Research Council’s ethical principles for research in the humanities and social sciences. The contract included four core ethical principles: on giving information, on collecting consent, on keeping confidentiality, and on restricting the use to the research purpose. All participants (students and teachers) in the project were also informed about these principles orally during an introductory meeting.

The research process was guided by the concept of the virtual actor. This concept was generated from the following suggestions by Habermas (1984):

That a researcher … has to participate virtually in the interactions whose meaning he wants to understand, and if, further, this participation means that he has to implicitly take a position on the validity claim that those immediately involved in communicative action connect with their utterances. (p. 120)

Thus, to be able to understand “something,” a researcher must communicate with those involved in the study. In the data collection, the suggestions above were used as guidance. Thus, during interviews and observations, the focus was not only on collecting data but also on ensuring that data were based on mutual understanding. When discussions during interviews and observations were in need of clarification, the researcher entered the discussions with a focus on reaching mutual understanding. Another strategy was to formulate questions that arose during the observations and include them in the interviews conducted after the RPL process had finished.

A Habermasian Analysis

The focus here is on using the theory of communicative action for analysis of empirical data. Pedersen (2008, 2009) has explored this by focusing on Habermas’s method of rational reconstruction. According to Pedersen, Habermas squeezes himself in between objectivist and subjectivist methodological–analytical approaches. The theory presents the social scientific interpreter with a normative framework, which can be used to interpret empirical data. Thus, a researcher can falsify or confirm whether the theory of communicative action is applicable to the social practice analyzed. So rational reconstruction is about interpreting (in the hermeneutic sense; also see above), but doing so based on a normative theory. The goal of rational reconstruction is to find underlying symbolic structures by means of a critical, constructive, and theoretical analysis (Pedersen, 2008).

With inspiration drawn from rational reconstruction and Habermas’s work more in general, the analysis was conducted in the following manner.

Prior research on RPL for accreditation was noticeably critical. Words like instrumental, technical, and means-end focus drew attention to Habermas’s theory of communicative action.

A rational reconstruction of the assessment process, focusing on the assessment interviews, was conducted. Here, the following questions were addressed:

In what worlds does it progress?

What kinds of actions govern the process?

How can validity claims be used as a tool to inform the analysis?

How can Habermas’s idea of rationalities be used?

The conclusions from the rational reconstruction developed into an analysis of the students’ understanding of the process.

A more thorough connection to Habermas was made in a discussion, also including a reconstruction of how the process would look like idealistically if developed into communicative action.

The RPL Process Studied

The adult in-service program studied is at the upper-secondary level and lasts for approximately one and a half years. The students continue to work 80% of their time and spend 20% attending the in-service program. This contrasts with the upper-secondary school program, lasting for 3 years (including core subjects), and the adult education health care program, which require full participation for 1.5 years. Here, the focus has been on the RPL process, whereas the second part of the program, consisting of traditional formal education, has not been included.

The RPL process takes 4 months to complete and can be divided into two parts. First, the participants’ prior learning is mapped; second, their prior learning is recognized and assessed in connection with selected courses. Thus, first the student’s prior learning was mapped by means of a number of processes such as assessment interviews and questionnaires. After this process, all the students were regarded as being capable of being recognized and assessed in comparison with the content of four courses: (a) care work, (b) work environment and security, (c) social and cultural perspectives on human behavior, and (d) questions of ethics and life. Besides these four courses, some of the students were seen as competent enough to get recognition in additional courses—in most cases, one additional course reflecting these assistants’ specific experiences. Second, after the mapping period, the students’ prior learning was assessed in both theory and practice. A large part of the process consisted of a 6-week RPL practicum where the participant’s prior learning was assessed by a tutor. In addition, teachers and students met at school five times (5 full days) to work with the theoretical content of the courses.

In the analysis here, the assessment interviews in the RPL process are focused. This interview lasted approximately 1 hour. It was carried out during the mapping period, at the beginning of the process. In the assessment interview, one of the teachers asked questions and one took notes. The assessment interview included more open questions, where the teachers asked the students to describe their work, together with more specific questions drawn from the curriculum of courses. The purpose was to make a first assessment of whether the student’s prior learning was sufficient for a more extensive assessment in comparison with courses in the program.

Findings

This section presents an analysis focusing mainly on the students’ understanding of the RPL process. However, first, the assessment interview is framed by a rational reconstruction using tools from Habermas’s theory of communicative action. Second, the students’ understanding of the assessment interview is focused on. Third, the students’ understanding of what was recognized is analyzed. Finally, attention is paid to a discussion of the students’ understanding of the transformation of their prior learning into course credits.

A Rational Reconstruction of the Assessment Interview

To understand the RPL process, it is important to reconstruct the assessment interview to be able to use this as a starting point when moving to a discussion of how the students understand the process. In this analysis, recorded observations of the assessment interviews have been used.

The assessment interviews begin with open questions where the students are asked to describe their lives and tell the teachers about a workday. After these questions, the students begin reflecting on their life from the perspective of their subjective world and the teachers acknowledge their utterances as true or not internally (having the right experiences that fit the courses or not). The teachers thus take the role of audience and the participants “enter the stage.” The actions of the students are thus close to Habermas’s idea of dramaturgical action. Here, the students subjectively and in a narrative way are asked to describe their prior learning experiences. On several occasions, the teachers interrupt the “performance” by asking further questions or questions directly drawn from the curriculum of the courses (the objective world). However, during the conversation the teachers never communicate how the participant’s prior experiences are connected to the curriculum. In one sense, the interview is based on a process of understanding, but this understanding is one sided. The teachers try to understand which of the participant’s experiences can be compared with courses in the in-service program. As was discussed above, an important issue in communicative action is to reach a mutual definition of a situation with other actors. However, the framing of the assessment interview suggests that it is, rather, based on the teacher’s goal-oriented and strategic actions forcing the students to act dramaturgically by digging into their subjective world and truthfully responding to the teacher’s questions without an understanding of what this means per se. The consequences of this process will be discussed below from the student’s point of view.

The Students’ Understanding of the Assessment Interview

Three subthemes emerged in relation to the students’ understanding of the assessment interview. These included what is written down, being blocked, and internal conversation.

What is written down?

As was discussed above, the assessment interview could be framed as a fairly instrumental process where the teachers act strategically. What Janet tells us in this quote reflects the suggestion that mutual understanding is not focused: “What is written down? Is she quoting me correctly? But I guess they write when they have to. It is actually they who are responsible. So you get a true assessment when you step out.” Janet reports on a lot of issues that she does not understand. She asks herself if the teachers have understood her correctly and documented this properly. But even though she does not understand what is going on, she seems to accept that this is something she is not supposed to understand. Instead, she relies on the teacher’s professionalism and that he or she is responsible for the assessment being correct. Mia mentions the same aspects as Janet:

It must be amazingly hard to take notes and get it out. And we said that several times when we talked afterwards in the group [with the other students], that it is totally amazing that they were able to get what they needed.

Mia reflects on the documentation in the interview and is amazed at how the teachers were able to get what they needed from her answers. It is, however, clear that both Mia and Janet have no idea how this process works. What are written down are the utterances that the teachers think are true in relation to the curriculum of the courses. Thus, “what is true” (truth claim) is only understood by the teachers and is not communicated to the students in the process.

Being blocked

The lack of mutual understanding also produces a feeling of “being blocked,” or that the interview felt “disjointed.” Here, the lack of mutual definitions concerning the purpose of the assessment interview seems to play a major role. Maria says the following about her experiences of the assessment interview:

Well, during that conversation [assessment interview] I was totally blocked… I don’t know why but I know we sat down afterwards and talked about it. And if you had been prepared a little it might have turned out differently.

Maria suggests that she does not know why, but that she felt blocked during the interview. Her suggestion is that she lacked proper preparation for the interview. The interpretation here is that if she had known more clearly what the purpose of the interview was, she would have been able to perform differently. Ruth also felt blocked during her interview:

Throughout I thought: what was that? Because you thought that you had to prove something here. In a way you probably did, but all the time I was thinking: What is it they want? What are they looking for? You were a bit blocked there, I felt.

Ruth seemed to know that she had to prove something during the interview, but it was not clear to her what that was. This shows that the means-end results of the RPL process and prescribed norms of how to act, what to do, are not mutually defined. Only the teachers know where the process is heading: They know what they are looking for, they know what they want, but apparently not the students. Habermas (1992) addresses this concern and says that “the addressee of a command or a request must as a rule be familiar with the normative context that authorizes a speaker to make this demand” (p. 83). This raises concerns about the mutual understanding of what is normatively right; the students should be able to know how to act in relation to the questions (commands) given by the teachers. However, this feeling of being blocked also seems to have other consequences for the students: They have internal conversations throughout the interviews.

Internal conversations

What seems to take place is that the students have not reached a mutual definition of the purpose of the assessment interview or a mutual understanding with the teachers during the interview. It thus becomes a rather fuzzy process, primarily oriented toward the teacher’s success in strategically getting the right answers to questions they ask. At the same time, as the students are trying to respond to the teacher’s questions, they are trying to understand what is really going on. Sandy discusses this as follows: “that phenomenon that arose [during the assessment interview]: at the same time as you answered questions, you frantically reflected and tried to find the knowledge [internally].” The interpretation of this is that, at the same time as Sandy has a conversation with the teachers externally, there is also a conversation going on internally.

Many of the students also had problems understanding how their prior learning was supposed to be assessed. When Ruth is asked to describe how the teachers assessed her prior learning, she says that she asked several questions internally:

How could they get anything out of the answers I gave them? But, ok [they said]: we are pleased now. But, what have I said that you [they] can touch upon [grasp]? I thought after these conversations [assessment interviews].

It seems that Ruth is trying to understand how her answers are connected to what the teacher wants her to say. But this was never communicated to her. The only response she got was that the teachers at a certain point seemed to be pleased. For Ruth, it is unclear as to how her answers were helpful to the teachers. Mandy also felt that the interview was unclear:

Well, there were quick switches between this and that—from one subject to another. So, alright, was that ok now? If you only started [replying] to the questions, it solved itself. You sat down and talked for an hour. So, alright, an hour has already passed?

For Mandy, the interview did not seem to have a clear thread. Instead, it seemed to jump between different subjects. Like Ruth, Mandy also seems to have asked questions internally during the interview and accepts that she does not really understand what is going on.

From a Habermasian perspective, this reflects the teacher’s goal-oriented and strategic actions. The lack of mutual definitions concerning the purpose of the assessment interview and the lack of mutual understanding during the interview seem to have several consequences for the students’ understanding of the process. First, the students do not know what the means-end goal of the assessment interview is (or what is true). Second, they do not know how to behave in relation to the prescribed norms in the assessment interview (claim of normative rightness). Because of this, the students are forced to carry on internal conversations. Instead of being a process based on communication between teachers and student, the assessment interview forces the students to “talk to themselves.” Habermas (1974) sees dangers in the solitary reflection of a respondent, because the respondent in an act of self-reflection can deceive himself or herself. The subject has to be split up in an internal intersubjectivity. This process can be seen in the internal conversations and the questions posed by the students: What is written down? What is it they want from me? Another consequence of the lack of mutual understanding is the reported feeling of being blocked or that the interview being felt disjointed.

The Students’ Understanding of What Was Assessed and Recognized

Since the purpose of the assessment interview was unclear and confusing to many students, they also have a hard time understanding what was actually recognized and assessed in the process. Even though later on in the process, students undergo a more specific assessment in relation to the curriculum of four courses, the connection between these courses and their prior learning is never fully understood. Even after the end of the process and when they have passed all the courses, the students either tend to generalize what was recognized (“everything was recognized”) or view the recognition as connected to an acknowledgement of personal distinctiveness. When Liza is asked to describe what was recognized, she gives the following answer: “No, no I never got that … but I guess it is this caring stuff, the things you think you are good at.” Another student thought that “everything was recognized,” which can be compared with Liza’s suggestion that “this caring stuff” was recognized. These responses are quite common in the interviews and are seemingly connected to the lack of mutual understanding and the fact that the transformation of prior learning into course credits is not communicated to the students. However, one of the more recurrent themes was that the students understood the recognition as connected to them as people. When asked to describe what was recognized, Janet reports the following: “What I know is knowledge that others may not have. And then the teachers ask me about that and then you get a recognition that I can do this I can do that.” Here, it is once again important to note that the process is focused on accreditation. For Janet, something quite different is recognized. For her, it is instead something very specific and personal that has been recognized, it is personal knowledge, distinctiveness that others may not have. Maria also understands recognition as being connected to personal distinctiveness:

I guess I have gotten more acknowledged in that I am thinking right. But I guess I have thought this all the time. But now it has been confirmed to be right. How one looks at another human being when you work… . I am only here to do what others want, what the other wants. This has been confirmed now.

For Maria, acknowledgement or recognition is connected to an acknowledgement of her way of thinking and that the process has recognized that she has been doing it correctly.

“To Pass But Don’t Know How and Why”

In the end all students eventually pass the same four courses, but many of them do not seem to know why they passed, how the assessment was conducted, and what was actually recognized. For example, Laura, one of the teachers, explains that their responsibility is to see how the theory in the courses can be connected to the student’s prior learning, but that the students should not be able to understand this process. In a recorded observation (Field Recording 1) with the researcher, Laura says the following:

“It is my responsibility to get the theory in there, in accordance with the goals of the courses and [the meaning of] central concepts and so forth—this the participants should not be able to say [i.e., what this means].”

One conclusion to be drawn from this is, once again, that the teachers do not explain to the students how their prior experiential learning is transformed into course credits. Thus, students try to make their own interpretations of the meaning of this. When Ruth is asked to describe this, she reflects on it in the following way:

Ruth: But this culture and humans [course], I have no experience of that. We have one [client] from [a country other than Sweden], but that is not something you notice. He has no special traditions … but a lot is related to having the right understanding and thoughts, then whether or not I have any experiences [in connection with the course(s)], doesn’t matter too much.

Researcher:

So you think it is connected more to that?

Ruth:

I believe it is so. Because if not I would not have passed.

Ruth cannot see the connection between her experiences and one of the courses. Instead, she tries to find other reasons for why she was able to pass the course. For her, it is not so much about experiences. She even suggests that she would not have passed a course if it had been based on her experiences. Instead, it is related to having the right understanding and thoughts. Julie also thought that she did not have any sufficient prior experiences in comparison to one of the courses she passed: “And that I have no experience of, as I said to Marilyn [teacher], when we had that conversation [assessment interview]. I mean culture and such things.”

These statements do not mean that the assessment of the students was incorrect. However, it can be argued that the students do not understand how their experiences are linked with the curricula. Since the participants have not reached a mutual understanding with the teachers regarding how the assessment in the interview was carried out, they have a hard time understanding how their prior experiential learning was actually assessed. It seems that the process is instrumental and focused primarily on succeeding with the means-end result of granting course credits. This process makes reaching mutual understanding with the students superfluous. The conclusion is that the students therefore only understand that their prior learning was considered sufficient enough for being awarded course credits. Not what this truly means per se. What becomes evident here is that the students were not able to say how the assessment was performed. However, many of the students tried to figure out whether the assessment had been carried out correctly, but since the assessment processes is neither mutually defined nor focused on mutual understanding, these questions remain unanswered. Instead, the students accept that this is not something they are supposed to understand. The student’s view of what has been recognized is either very general or connected to recognition of more personal characteristics.

Discussion

Based on the data presented, a more thorough discussion of RPL for accreditation can be held. One recurrent theme is the lack of mutual definitions prior to the interview, the teacher’s strategic and goal-oriented actions during the assessment interview, and the lack of feedback on how the students’ prior learning is connected to the curriculum. The main consequence of these aspects is that the students do not understand how their prior learning experiences are transformed into course credits.

It could be argued that the processes discussed above to a great extent follow an instrumental rather than a communicative rationality. Here, it is possible to return to the three forms of rationalities discussed above. Means-end rationality points to questions regarding what is true: What is the goal of the assessment and how is this reached? Normative rationality points to questions about how to behave: How are students’ actions supposed to be oriented in relation to the prescribed norms in the RPL process? Expressive rationality points to questions concerning subjectivity and truthfulness: How can the student present a truthful picture of their prior learning? The lack of mutual understanding and definitions here is related to all three forms of rationalities. The students do not know by which means the assessment is conducted or what the goal is. They do not know how to orient their actions toward the normatively prescribed values in the process (“being a student,” “how to reflect in the right way so their prior learning can be made visible”). Third, they do not know how to present themselves truthfully, that is, it is hard for the students to be truthful, or describe their subjective experiences, when they do not clearly know what they are supposed to be truthful about.

However, the assessment in the RPL process could probably be enhanced if it focused on mutual understanding between teacher and student. Here, the theory of communicative action could be used as an ideal tool. First, students and teachers must agree on a mutual definition of the assessment process prior to its implementation. Here, the teachers need to endorse a mutual definition of how the assessment will be conducted and how the students are supposed to perform during the interview. What do the teachers want the students to accomplish? How are they supposed to act? What is the goal of the process? However, the assessment interview process also needs to be more oriented toward mutual understanding. Second, the question–response focus needs to be changed toward a more conversation-focused interview. This would make possible more communicative discussions, where feelings of being blocked and questions posed internally could be integrated into these discussions. Teachers in the RPL process then need to inform students more clearly that anything may be said, questioned, or discussed in the process. Third, a mutual conversation at the end of the process could include a thorough presentation and discussion of how the student’s prior learning is transformed into course credits. What prior experiences did the students have? And how were these experiences assessed in terms of the curriculum? A more communicative action–oriented process could promote the students’ understanding of the process, and they would then be able to build on that as they move on to new learning contexts. Reflecting these results, Habermas’s theorizations have been correctly criticized for not shedding enough light on gender issues (see, for instance, Fraser, 1987; Gouthro, 2009). Hopefully, the results here in this specific context can prove that there also are benefits of applying the theory in a study focusing on a group of women.

Even though there may be suggestions about how to develop the RPL process into communicative action and mutual understanding, rather than strategic action, some problems are not that easy to solve. RPL for accreditation of prior experiential learning to qualify for course credits can, in general, be seen as a process that forces the lifeworld to assimilate with the system. It is here important to return to the quote above where Habermas (1987) illustrates how “autonomous subsystems make their way into the lifeworld from the outside—like colonial masters coming into tribal society—and force a process of assimilation upon it” (p. 355). In essence, Castle and Atwood’s (2001), Gouthro and Holloway’s (2010), Sandberg’s (2010), and Spencer’s (2005) concerns regarding RPL for accreditation (or its promotion of instrumental education/learning in general)—that RPL for accreditation serves an instrumental logic, promotes an instrumental view of curricula, focuses on the means-end results of the credit, and risks reproducing a normative view of care work uncritically—do not contradict these results obtained. At the same time, it could be appropriate to adopt a more reflexive point of view concerning the criticism of instrumental education. A lot of education is instrumental. The problem here is, rather, that when RPL processes are not focused on mutual understanding, the students are treated unfairly. It is evident that the students would benefit if the process were more focused on mutual understanding. Briton et al.’s (1998) suggestion that the use value of certain knowledge is mixed up with exchange value, that is, that one type of knowledge, even though important, may not be easily translated into course credits, does seem to be justified. From the interviews with the students and from a researcher’s perspective, it is unclear how the students’ prior learning was transformed into course credits. Future research needs to focus more on how transformation of prior learning into course credits is made possible.

Many researchers and scholars (e.g., Brown, 2001, 2002; Spencer, 2005) promote RPL as part of a learning process. In the present case, it is argued that the ability to build on the recognized prior learning in a more conscious way is not possible. The Habermasian analysis points to the problems when mutual definitions of a situation are not agreed and when mutual understanding in an RPL process is not focused on. If RPL is to support adults’ learning, it is vital, as was discussed above, that students reach a mutual understanding with the teachers regarding the RPL process and its outcome so that they can move on and use these experiences in new learning contexts. A central issue to be discussed is thus how this kind of result of an RPL process promotes adult learning and education. For instance, Spencer (2005) argues that the focus on RPL (or PLAR) does little to breathe new life into the democratic social purposes of adult education. It is more likely the opposite. Another dilemma is that adult education (and probably education in general) in essence promotes the idea that students need to understand the experiences they have. Mezirow (1997) makes his view explicit in the following quote:

A defining condition of being human is that we have to understand the meaning of our experience. For some, any uncritically assimilated explanation by an authority figure will suffice. But in contemporary societies we must learn to make our own interpretations rather than act on the purposes, beliefs, judgments, and feelings of others. Facilitating such understanding is the cardinal goal of adult education. (p. 5)

In the process discussed here, there were several examples of how the students seemed to accept anything they did not understand based on the fact that the teachers were authority figures. This raises issues of power and does not seem to satisfy important goals and ideals in adult education and learning.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the three reviewers for their helpful comments. I also want to thank Chris Kubiak for reading the article and for providing useful comments.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bio

Fredrik Sandberg is a PhD student in adult learning at Linköping University, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Sweden. His research critically explores Recognition of prior learning with focus on such processes in the health care sector and higher education contexts. Theoretically he draws from critical theory, focusing especially on Jürgen Habermas’ theory of communicative action.

References

Andersson

(2008). National policy and the implementation of recognition of prior learning in a Swedish municipality. Journal of Education Policy, 23, 515-531.

Andersson

Fejes

Ahn

S.-E.

(2004). Recognition of prior vocational learning in Sweden. Studies in the Education of Adults, 36(1), 57-71.

Andersson

Harris

(Eds.). (2006). Re-theorising the recognition of prior learning. Leicester, England: NIACE.

Andersson

Osman

(2008). Recognition of prior learning as a practice for differential inclusion and exclusion of immigrants in Sweden. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(1), 42-60.

Briton

Gereluk

Spencer

(1998). Prior learning assessment and recognition: Issues for adult educators. Paper presented at the CASAE Conference Proceedings, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Brookfield

(2001). Repositioning ideology critique in a critical theory of adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(7), 7-22.

Brookfield

(2005). Learning democratic reason: The adult education project of Jürgen Habermas. Teachers College Record, 107, 1127-1168.

Brown

J. O.

(2001). The portfolio: A reflective bridge connecting the learner, higher education and the workplace. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 49(2), 1-13.

Brown

J. O.

(2002). Know thyself: The impact of portfolio development on adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 52, 228-245.

10.

Castle

Attwood

(2001). Recognition of prior learning (RPL) for access or credit? Problematic issues in a university adult education department in South Africa. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33(1), 60-71.

11.

Fearfull

(1997). Training, vocational qualifications and employee performance in care work in the U.K. International Journal of Training and Development, 1, 158-172.

12.

Fearfull

(1998). It’s just like somebody turned on a light: An NVQ success story from the voluntary sector. Health Manpower Management, 24(1), 13-19.

13.

Fejes

(2008). Governing nursing through reflection: A discourse analysis of reflective Practices. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64, 243-250.

14.

Fejes

(2010). Confession, in-service training and reflective practices. British Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.500371

15.

Fejes

Andersson

(2009). Recognising prior learning: Understanding the relations among experience, learning and recognition from a constructivist perspective. Vocations and Learning, 2(1), 37-55.

16.

Fraser

(1987). What’s critical about critical theory? The case of Habermas and gender. In Benhabib

Cornell

(Eds.), Feminism as critique: Essays on the politics of gender in late-capitalist societies (pp. 31-56). Cambridge, England: Polity.

17.

Gouthro

A. P.

Holloway

M. S.

(2010). Reclaiming the radical: Using fiction to challenge the “facts” of a neoliberal discourse in lifelong learning. In Merrill

Armstrong

(Eds.), Looking back, looking forward: Learning, teaching and research in adult education past, present and future (pp. 162-168). East Sussex, England: University of Sussex, Centre for Continuing Education/SCUTREA.

18.

Gouthro

P. A.

(2009). Neoliberalism, lifelong learning, and the homeplace: Problematizing the boundaries of “public” and “private” to explore women’s learning Experiences. Studies in Continuing Education, 31, 157-172.

19.

Habermas

(1974). Theory and practice. London, England: Heinemann.

20.

Habermas

(1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Polity.

21.

Habermas

(1987). The theory of communicative action, Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (Vol. 2). Cambridge, England: Polity.

22.

Habermas

(1992). Postmetaphysical thinking: Philosophical essays. Cambridge: MIT Press.

23.

Kolb

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

24.

Mezirow

(1981). A critical theory of Adult learning and education. Adult Education Quarterly, 32(1), 3-27.

25.

Mezirow

(1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.

26.

Michelson

(1996). Beyond Galileo’s telescope: Situated knowledge and the assessment of experiential learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46, 185-196.

27.

Ministry of Education. (2001). Validering av vuxnas kunskap och kompetens (SOU 2001:78) [Validation of adult’s knowledge and competencies]. Stockholm, Sweden: Utbildningsdepartementet.

28.

Ministry of Education. (2003). Validering m.m.-fortsatt utveckling av vuxnas lärande (SOU 2003:23) [Validation etc.—Continued development of adult’s learning]. Stockholm, Sweden: Utbildningsdepartementet.

29.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. London, England: Sage.

30.

Pedersen

(2008). Habermas’ method: Rational reconstruction. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 38, 457-485.

31.

Pedersen

(2009). Habermas and the political sciences. The relationship between theory and practice. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 39, 381-407.

32.

Sandberg

(2010). Recognising health care assistants prior learning through a caring ideology. Vocations and learning, 3, 99-115.

33.

Somerville

(2006). Becoming-worker: Vocational training for workers in aged care. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54, 471-481.

34.

Spencer

(2005). Defining prior learning assessment and recognition. In English

(Ed.), Encyclopaedia of adult education (pp. 508-512). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Step for Skills. (2006). Faktablad 5: Kompetensstegens försöksverksamhet [Information sheet 5: The pilot scheme of step for skills]. Stockholm, Sweden: Kompetensstegen.

36.

Taylor

(1996). Learning from experience: Recognition of prior learning (RPL) and professional development for teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 24, 281-292.

37.

Warnke

(1987). Gadamer: Hermeneutics, tradition and reason. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.